User talk:Skult of Caro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Block

Based on investigation by myself and other administrators, we have determined that this account is a sockpuppet of Nathanrdotcom, whose indefinite block/ban was supported by the community and the Arbitration Committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh give it up. *rolls eyes* Can you prove this? Skult of Caro (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "What "proof" are you talking about? Posting on an imposter's talk page and listing every commonly known logical reason as to why he couldn't be Nathanrdotcom's sockpuppet doesn't make ME a sockpuppet. All those reasons I listed are common knowledge. Anyone with half a memory would remember those things. Your logic is full of holes unless you can back it up with some proof. No checkuser has been done (at least none listed on WP:RFCU), so what so-called "investigation" are you talking about? There is nothing in my contribs which link me to any user, blocked or not. I appeal this so-called decision. Skult of Caro (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "In additiont to the improbability of an unrelated user caring whether or not a troll was misidentified, Nathan states on Wikipedia Review that he contacted User:PatPeter and expressed that "Anyone who was actually serious about suicide would've done it after clicking 'Save' ", very similar to this comment [1]. -- Thatcher131 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I think that if a troll was misidentified and anyone could think of the reasons, they would've commented - regardless of Nathanrdotcom's "notoriety". Those comments may be similar but you're grasping at straws. The final judgement in any case should be made by CheckUser. Another good user lost to snap judgements. Go pat yourself on the back. Skult of Caro (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom's last contributions are too old for checkuser, and in any case, checkuser can be avoided by a knowledgeable editor. You are free to appeal your block by e-mailing any member of the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to do that. I appeal it here and now and in the open. Any Arbcom member can read this if they so choose. The e-mail function is totally open so that any Arbcom member can e-mail me if they like. I'm willing to co-operate with any and all investigations. Skult of Caro (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, with all due respect, don't even bother. I can tell it's you just from your tone. There's a whole wide world outside of Wikipedia, it's time to move on. Honestly, it would be better for everyone. — MichaelLinnear 01:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock this account immediately

I don't know when this happened,but I want it to stop now. This account never did anything to anybody. Even if this is nathanrdotcom, why would you want to block it simply for being a sockpuppet? I know it's not allowed, but you should give him a chance. This user didn't do anything wrong to anybody while using this account. Everything nathanrdotcom did that was wrong, he apologized for it. The blocking admin wanted him unblocked. Maybe nathanrdotcom was blocked, but this account has never hurt anybody. Please give him a chance to start over. I am his adopter, and I will help him. If there are any questions, please ask me. Thanks and have a good day!!--CJ K 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJ King, Skult of Caro informed me in an email that he/she is pursuing this matter with the Arbitrator mailing list. Just so you know. — MichaelLinnear 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)